Catholic dogma makes the Pope the only earthly conduit to the truth. Such dogma cannot be more opposed to Laozi's teachings. Dao is all around us and accessible to all who wish it, but I doubt very much that it can be found by rote learning catechism.

Not to mention use of bad translations where the entire meaning of LaoTze is lost.

Such colossal pretense at knowing where ignorance presides.

I hope we have seen the last of an exemplar of poor hardware and maimed software.

Thank you again, HRA, for your succinct note.

No need to reply to this post, whoever you are.

I too beg out of this Johnson piece, started as an educational romp on the language of Latin, so excellently introduced by Johnson and joined in by many, only to be short-circuited by a hijack yet again for the nth time by the same individual who would seize all TE forums as a self-serve and self-serving chance to sell a personal religion to the disrespect of all who have or might already have one of their own. None of us is in third grade, I assume, or without a brain. It does appear to this person ALL of TE blogs are an airport for the eternal sound of Corinthian gongs and cymbals without the yellow and shave.

“Asia is also the cradle of the world's major religions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It is the birthplace of many other spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism and Shintoism. Millions also espouse traditional or tribal religions, with varying degrees of structured ritual and formal religious teaching. The Church has the deepest respect for these traditions and seeks to engage in sincere dialogue with their followers. The religious values they teach await their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.”

“Making reference to what the Magisterium of the Church has expressed up until now (cf. AG 11; NA 2-4), and the various responses which arrived, the following points call for reflection and evaluation. The Church, sent to bring the Gospel to all creation (cf. Mk 16:15), encounters a great number of followers of traditional religions and those which possess sacred books with their own way of understanding them. Everywhere she encounters persons who are actively searching or simply awaiting the "Good News". In every case, the Church feels herself duty-bound to the Word which saves (cf. Rm 1:14). Positively speaking, an effort should be made to discern the "seeds of the Word" (semina Verbi) among people, which can serve as a genuine preparation for the Gospel. Religions and spiritual traditions which especially merit attention because of their age and diffusion, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, ought to be objects of study by Catholics, in light of a faithful, respectful dialogue.”

AT least the RCC is in far better shape than the CoE.
It indeed would have been a boon to Latin if His Holiness had tweeted in Latin in order to allow especially younger people to see some relevance of Latin in a modern world.

I have learned more about you and your insufferable holier-than-thou attitudes in the past few months than I wish to know. I had more than enough with our last "conversation". Look for someone else to evangelize.

I read your previous posts on this thread and, whatever my opinion about them was, I respected them. It's always you who look for trouble, last time simply because I quoted a verse from the Bible and you didn't like it.

P.S. I am not an "atheist", so-called or not. This may surprise you, but you don't have a monopoly concerning god, religion or any other thing. Give your fellow posters a break.

By the way, I am not an atheist, but what if I were? As a matter of fact I was and maybe I will be again in the future. I know persons who are atheists but are morally, intellectually and spiritually superior to so-called "religious" people like you.

I’m not trying to ‘evangelize’ anyone; especially not you. Don’t you know - Catholics are not Evangelist? I merely publicize what I believe in. If someone wishes to believe as I do; so-be-it. If someone believes otherwise; what is that belief? I’d like to know. However; if their belief is hate-filled, I will not agree it is a healthy belief.

Regarding our previous dialogue, you essentially wrote that it is Ok to take quotations completely out of context to support your argument then. It is true what you wrote then “I decide what I quote and I decide the context, you don't decide anything for me” (free speech). However, I have the right to point out when you are using a quotation completely out of context (again – free speech). Why did you get angry when someone exposed you for taking a quotation out of context?

Also, if you had really read my posts here and elsewhere open-mindely, you would know that I do not claim any monopoly. I’d enjoy reading what you believe in regarding “god, religion or any other thing”. Please restrict yourself to what you believe in and not disparage what other people believe in. Also, please be concise & to-the-point.

I also know some atheists who are morally, intellectually, and spiritually superior to some so-called religious people as well - both Christians and atheists have their “Reckless and incompetent expounders”. I know of some of these good atheists both offline and online and respect them. However; none of them try to belittle and disparage those who Faithfully practice their Religion. On the contrary, they show respect for Religion.

If a so-called atheist truly did not believe in the existence of God; why do they hate, belittle, and disparage God & Religion in-general if they truly believe that God does not exist?

1) Try to improve your comprehension of the English language. "Evangelize: To preach the gospel to. To convert to Christianity. To act as an evangelist. To preach the Christian gospel or a particular interpretation of it (intr) To advocate a cause with the object of making converts."

2) "Hate-filled"? I haven't seen any "hate-filled" texts in this article & thread, including my own posts. Just culture, humour and wit. Don't project your fears or obsessions onto others.

3) I respected your posts addressed to the blogmaster, even when you alluded to me and other people ("ridiculing comments", etc). I replied to you because you had the nerve to reply to me. I suppose you understand what the cause-and-effect mechanism and Newton's Third Law of Motion are, even if they are not explained in the Bible.

4) I am not going to discuss here what we discussed on another thread one or two months ago, this blog does not deserve this. Nor do I. All I know is that at the end I was fed up with you and your biased and dishonest way of "dialoguing".

5 I didn't "get angry". You should see me when I am angry...

6) I don't read your posts, here or elsewhere, I just take a quick look at some of them if I am posting as well and... scroll. If there was an "ignore list" feature you would be in it because I don't have any interest in you or what you say. It's not a prejudice, it's a consequence of my personal experience.

7) It's not the first time you try to censor me. You don't have any right to ask me (and other people) to "restrict" myself to what I believe, etc. I will say whatever I want to say about anything I want whenever I want—trying to abide by The Economist's Terms of use, of course. If I say something that violates TE's comments policy, the blogmaster or a moderator will tell me and even delete my post. And I will accept their decision even if I don't agree with it, of course, among other reasons because this is a privately-owned newspaper and website and they can have their rules and do what they will. If you don't like it, you just leave, no one is forced to be here.

8) Since you ask me to do it, I shall be "concise & and to-the-point": I don't like trolls, 'cyberhooligans', sockpuppets, idiots and baiters, but there's a kind of person I like even less: holier-than-thou would-be censors like you. I don't like you. Please do not reply to my posts. I can't prevent you from doing it, but if you do you will just show that you don't respect your fellow posters... or yourself for that matter.

10) Response to your second post. You clearly do not distinguish humour and wit from hatred, disparaging, belittling, etc. You are obsessed with "god" and religion, especially your "god" and your religion. I am not. That's the difference.

11) Do NOT try to censor other people or that will backfire on you. Anyway, as far as RCC censorship and control are concerned, 1,500 years have been more than enough, don't you think?

Are there any historical Latin links to Dalai Lama and Lady Gaga to require such a consideration ; or are you simply on a 'wind up' mission ? Not that that would bother me even if that were the case. This time of the year I welcome any kind of silliness provided it is not flagrantly malicious. I have read some of your posts though, and I must admit I do question your intentions, do have a good day.

As for "any kind of silliness", yes, I admit that parts of some of my posts here are pretty silly, if I could I would edit or delete them. Anyway they were humorous and well-meaning, certainly not "malicious".

My "intentions"? Please elaborate (or don't, really), you make me feel like some kind of conspirator...

I wonder why I keep having the feeling that you are a shop assistant and I just bought something and am leaving... ;-)

Before this thread dies its 'natural death', and since apparently I started this replying to your post, in which you wrote,

"AT least the RCC is in far better shape than the CoE.",

let me tell you something: I have an utmost respect for Dr Williams, I like his sermons and speeches (I remember one on Remembrance Sunday I particularly liked, or perhaps it was a royal wedding) and I like his English diction. I wasn't laughing at him or at the CoE with my suggestions and comments. He really IS the Primate of All England and the Primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion. In case you missed it, when I wrote,

"But... @ladygaga is #1 with 32,154,666 followers (!!!), i.e. 4.500 followers vs one of The Most Reverend Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, so I give up."

My "so I give up" referred to the fact that I have nothing to do in a place where the Lady Gaga-Dr Williams ratio is 4,500:1. I did not not have a Twitter account and I don't think I will want one in the future.

As for His Holiness Pope Benedictus XVI, it's almost impossible for me to believe that someone (some psychopaths or fanatical Muslims apart) could "hate" him or bear "malice" towards him, an 85-year-old scholar and theologian very loved and respected by millions of people. I was just HUMOROUSLY IRREVERENT, which is NOT a synonym of "FLAGRANTLY MALICIOUS" as you wrote, and I assure you that if I had known that he was going to read this thread, I would have not written what I wrote, out of respect for him. I just thought that the Jonhson bloggers here would be mature people capable of understanding, accepting and even sharing a joke, and apparently most have... except you and that other guy, the holier-than-thou. By the way, I read Ratzinger's autobiography, 1927-1977, and I liked it, especially the war years, 1939-1945. I wish him a long and happy life and a painless death, but for me he is just the leader of a church and a religion in which I do not believe and to which I do not belong, though I respect those who do—but that does not exclude criticism, humour, irony or even sarcasm, sometimes. (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

Your self-righteous judgement or rather misjudgement concerning me (you don't even know me, sir) and your excessive and disproportionate words ("flagrantly malicious", "intentions", "wind up mission", etc) in your responses to me, not even quite honest and direct, but rather indirect—like saying-without-saying-or-not-quite-saying-it,—made me think of the people who do cast the first stone and of this:

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

(Matthew 7:2)

""Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

I did actually get your point from the beginning. I had to learn a smattering of Latin when I studied law years ago, so I did get the point. Since you seem well affiliated to the church, I assume that you will be listening to no end of sermons this festive season, so I will not keep this long, felix dies Nativitatis.

My two favourite walks for many years: along the Thames and along the Seine, especially at night.
--
Sol Invictus will begin to change that these days. He always does, year after year. That's why He is... Invictus.
--
He also comes back every day. I always liked this imaginary dialogue between Marcus Aurelius and Timonides,
--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzlpI9qMqSU&feature=youtu.be&t=2m37 From 0:03:15 to 0:05:00.
--
If you haven't read his 'Meditations' (Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν), do it NOW.

Twitter in Japanese translates to 70 double-byte characters, which is more than enough to fit in 4 Haikus. So if @Pontifex ever has a Japanese language site, a confession consisting of 4 haikus could be posted... :P

Thank you for the information. So, how many haikus would @sinnerxyz6996's confession have in Japanese, considering the asterisks and everything? Can asterisks be syllabled?

By the way, I don't use Twitter, Facebook &c. and am therefore unfamiliar with this. I suspect that I should have written @sinnerxyz6996 before the confession and @Pontifex before the absolution, right? It would be embarrassing for me to make the Pope confess his sins while a sinner absolves him.

I took a second look at the @Pontifex page, the followers section, and I think I finally understood it: followers (sinners or not) just reply to any of @Pontifex's tweets and then @Pontifex replies to them if he wants, right? And I missed something: one's sins would be public for many people in Twitter to see! Not the details (which might make of that page a very popular one with many followers), but the preferences and asteriks.

No. No. This system wouldn't work. Imagine a conversation like this:

Wife: "Ah! So you covet our neighbor's wife ********* but you don't covet me even **?!"

Husband: "Come on Mildred, they are just asteriks. Besides, we are married and I like you, but how could I covet you?"

Wife: "And what about '6***'? Are they just asterisks as well?

Husband: "Well, that was just a figure of speech, but using numbers and asteriks instead of words."

I am going to have to print this one out and show my wife , who by the way is catholic. I expect , knowing her, she would turn beet red.
My wife, unfortunately, does not get this sort of humour, much as I relish it.

No , fortunately her name is not Mildred. Respectfully, I would have insisted that she changed her name by deed poll before we got married if that was her name, I just cannot stand that name at all ! No , as we live in Kent it would be a bit of a trek for her to get to Westminster every Sunday to attend mass , so she makes do with the local parish church of St. Edmund's , which as things go is not really a bad church. She insists I attend with her a few times a year usually around Advent and at Epiphany - for show, I oblige. I have nothing against the Roman Catholic Church, I just cannot believe everything they say, and, besides, I think any one who knows a fair bit about their history would find it somewhat difficult attending mass every week with a straight face. I think to be Catholic it is best have a superficial knowledge of the history of the RCC, again with respect.
No, I am not Presbyterian or Methodist, but I was brought up in the CoE. Much as I once revered this church and indeed as a child dreamt of becoming a priest, I now, regrettably, detest the church in it's present state absolutely for all it stands for. The Book of Common Prayer is still very dear to me, as is the Authorised King James's Bible. The psalms , sung by a good choir of the Anglican church, is for me still deeply devotional ; it always transports me to listen to say the Kings College Cambridge choir perform a rendering of Psalm 50 by Thomas Attwood - for me this is absolutely divine. But it is with great difficulty that I still sometimes attend church these days , and usually out of a habit acquired since childhood. I struggle to describe myself as Anglican.
For the last thirty years I have been a member of the Grail Movement though, a conviction based on the Grail Message which I came across in my adulthood. The Grail message provides for me a more coherent and comprehensive explanation of creation which I find satisfying. I bet you've never heard of that one before. Have I just stumped you ?

Ah, sorry, your walk along the Thames at night made me think that you... but in fact I thought of my own walks, always in London, forgetting that the Thames is much longer.

So my first impression was the right one. CoE, but critical.

I have had for many years an old pocket Book of Common Prayer, binded and printed as only Collins Clear-Type Press could do. I bought it second-hand at Portsmouth, of all places, and I bet it sailed for a while... Original price, 9/5 in 1956, the year of 'The Battle of the River Plate' You could drink more than a beer or a cider with nine shillings and five pence in those days. I take a look at it sometimes, at the calendar especially. December hath XXXI Days... I like these things, I can't help it (and old books of any kind).

"The psalms , sung by a good choir of the Anglican church, is for me still deeply devotional ; it always transports me to listen to say the Kings College Cambridge choir perform a rendering of Psalm 50 by Thomas Attwood - for me this is absolutely divine."

Of course, I know what you are referring to (I am a "classical" music buff, have always been) and I have to agree with you.
Even Pagans would like this and consider it divine, I mean sensitive and cultured Pagans, of course, and there were many BCE and even now. My problem with Christianity is that in spite of the fact that my parents and all my ancestors were Christian for many centuries (I was baptized), it's impossible for me to believe (not only rationally) the song, but I like many of its singers—no pun intended. Same thing for the other two "religions of the Book", plus the other religions (including Mithraism, in case you thought that I...), but my favourite "singers" are Christian.

At last! This time you betted or assumed rightly, I never heard of the Grail Movement, I will take a look [Edit. I just did. Quite new for me]. But no, you certainly did not stump me, in religious and other matters I am a pretty open-minded fellow, you could be Zoroastrian, Assyrian, Buddhist, anything, I wouldn't mind. Besides I read Mircea Elliade, C.G. Jung [Edit. Born in 1875, like Abd-ru-shin]. Hans Küng, Louis Cattiaux, Augustine of Hippo, Luther and many others and I am familiar with religions, but I don't join any of them. Same thing with political and national issues, I am and try to be an individual above everything else.

P.S. Since you mentioned Advent, you might like to take a look at this Advent thread where I posted a few comments as well. Don't miss my links to J.S. Bach and Elgar...

I am actually in the middle of some rather urgent work, so I will keep this very brief and respond to your delightful post fully later on. Abd ru Shin was very weary of any religion - especially formal religion, so I think with him you would be in good company. Abd ru Shin felt people should have the inner strength to stand on their own and did not need the panoply of ordained priests etc to show them the right path. He suffered personally from the abuses people are apt to make with religion once it is formalised, and, paradoxically, if he were on earth today probably would not even approve of the Grail Movement ! Bach, Elgar ... wonderful, in my opinion both right up there with the very best.

He died when he was only 63 years old (a critical age, nine cycles of seven years). When he was seriously ill, two years before he died, he composed Une cantate de Noël (A Christmas Cantata). I like it very very much, especially the Laudate Dominum, which I find of an extraordinary beauty and enthusiasm (from Greek enthousiasmos "divine inspiration", from enthousiazein "be inspired or possessed by a god, be rapt, be in ecstasy,", from entheos, "divinely inspired, possessed by a god," from en. "in" + theos "god"). It's pure, simple and generous.

If you already knew it, nothing has been lost, except my time (sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus) but anyway I intended to post this on the Advent thread one of these days.

------------------

Honegger was a multifaceted composer, as his 'Pacific 231' and other opera of his show, but this cantata, partly composed in 1940 and finally composed again in 1952-53, when he was very ill and was going to die... is unique.

Interesting. ABD RU SHIN apparrently is derived from Pershian/Arabic and translates roughly to 'Son of the Light.' Abd ru Shin was actually Austrian/German and his main work 'The Grail Message' is actually written in German, although of course there are translations in various languages. One of the reason he wrote under a nom de plume was partly as not to attract people to himself and to avoid the development of a personality cult which he felt by detract from his work.
... dashing off will give you a fuller answer later.

There must be a reason why I cannot stand the name Mildred, but I honestly could not tell you what that reason could be. I worked in a building not far from Westminster Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament for a number of years , literally across the road - just a few yards away, is 'Queen Anne's Footstool', which is the venue for many wonderful concerts. I try to treat my wife to a number of concerts there every year which she thoroughly enjoys. I am unashamedly partial to JS Bach to a fault, if I never have to listen to any other music apart from his for the rest of my life, I don't think I would have missed too much. This is not of course to say that there are no other composers who could be deeply stirring as well, but I think he is in a category all on his own. I find Elgar deeply stirring and evocative , I find I have to listen carefully to get the message and mood he is trying to convey , and then you get swept away and transported, but, if you were to take the oeuvre of Elgar's work and stand them against Bach's. there is no contest. Bach in my opinion stands head and shoulders above even greats like Handel or Vivaldi.
I am not particularly enamoured by music composed after say 1750. I've got to be honest I am a Baroque and Renaissance man through and through. This is not to say that there has not been a continuous stream of works in all the arts, some of which I must admit is good, some of the newer works of art are merely fascinating or interesting, some dreadful, but very few works or compositions after say the mid 1750's can be described as being truly great. All works of art, including music have declined in quality and continue to do so. But I am certainly in the minority, and I keep my thoughts generally to myself.
Years ago I remember arguing with my late father - who was by the way an architect of the 1950's to 19800's , about the quality of designs of contemporary buildings and he would often try to justify contemporary designs employing one reason or the other. The truth is we no longer want to commit ourselves to our work and for most people they work for money and not out of love. If people would work out of love, there would be a transformation in the quality and type of works we would have, then, perhaps, the day may come when again begin to see truly great works of art. I have heard some of Arthur Honegger's work before, but there is very little time to listen, watch or read all the first rate work available, should we have to settle for second ?

So do I. People think that Elgar is just Pomp and Circumstance (which is fine, I like it too) but he's much more than that.

As for The Dream of Gerontius,

"The first London performance was not given until 1903, at the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral. The strong Roman Catholicism of the work gave rise to objections in some influential British quarters; some Anglican clerics insisted that for performances in English cathedrals Elgar should modify the text to tone down the Roman Catholic references. There was no Anglican objection to Newman's words in general: Arthur Sullivan's setting of his "Lead, Kindly Light", for example, was sung at Westminster Abbey in 1904. Disapproval was reserved for the doctrinal aspects of "The Dream of Gerontius" repugnant to Anglicans, such as Purgatory. Elgar was unable to resist the suggested bowdlerisation, and in the ten years after the premiere the work was given at the Three Choirs Festival with an expurgated text. The Dean of Gloucester refused admission to the work until 1910. This attitude lingered until the 1930s, when the Dean of Peterborough banned the work from the cathedral. Elgar was also faced with many people's assumption that he would use the standard hymn tunes for the sections of the poem that had already been absorbed into Anglican hymn books: "Firmly I believe and truly", and "Praise to the Holiest in the Height".

(From Wikipedia)

As for J.S. Bach, no, there is no possible comparison, I have to agree with you again, but I have listened to many other composers and I like them very much (Just a few names in no particular order: Hindemith, Wagner, Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Brahms, Schubert, Pérotin and the Notre Dame School, Gregorian, Tallis, Bliss, Mozart, Nielsen, Sibelius, Beethoven, Copland, Ives, Puccini, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinski, Satie, Falla, Respighi... and many many others)

Concerning Shin, it's also a very interesting Hebrew letter (meaning "sharp"), the 21st (today is the 21st), with the numerical value of 300 (I studied some gematria).

When I realize I am beginning to write things like "binded", I begin to suspect that I am not sleeping enough at night, so I am trying to change that.

I think you have developed a new index of elitism: the follower to followed ratio. Looking forward to seeing another Forbes 400 list soon. Excuse me while I go purge my followed list to improve my ratio.

I read somewhere the shortest (and wittiest) military dispatch was sent in 1844 by General Sir Charles Napier after his conquest of Sind (or Sindh), in present-day Pakistan. It consisted of one word from the Latin liturgy: Peccavi ("I have sinned."). (The General had indeed sinned, as he said himself, "We have no right to seize Sind."

Are you serious? Some think God not only has a Twitter account, but God tweets them everyday about every right-wrong issue to be decided from first breath to last, not only for them, but for everyone else.